If I have Navigraph Data Bases installed in MSFS2020, are those data used instead of default data bases ?

Dave Hinson

yes but there is a lot of STAR procedures missed in game. I have navigraph 2013 installed in game and installed into P2ATC and little navmaps and there are a los of STAR procedures in both prograns (P2ATC and little navmaps) that are missing in MSFS and ou can't introduce them in the MCDU.

I can't understand this if all programs have the same AIRCA installed

I'm also wondering if Navigraph will fill in the missing data?  There's a ton of smaller airports in MSFS that don't have any RNAV approaches / procedures.

I'd be curious to know the number of procedures between navblue and navigraph.

31 minutes ago, ryanbatcund said:

I'm also wondering if Navigraph will fill in the missing data?  There's a ton of smaller airports in MSFS that don't have any RNAV approaches / procedures.

I'd be curious to know the number of procedures between navblue and navigraph.

This was back in September, but we did a compare between Navblue and Navigraph...

Navblue:

Navigraph:

NavBlue data has improved a lot since then - maybe we can check again with the latest from each - but there are plenty of approaches that Navigraph includes that aren't in the NavBlue data. This has a lot to do with the approach name coding and it looks to us like Navigraph is doing some manipulation of the approach names - for example NavBlue data doesn't include any approaches with lettered names or that are offset from the runway course, while Navigraph does bring those in by renaming them slightly. This is one of the subjects we're hoping to explore with the Asobo team in the future...

20 minutes ago, cwburnett said:

This is one of the subjects we're hoping to explore with the Asobo team in the future...

If you're discussing this, please also consider bringing up that the in-sim localizer orientations have been locked to the runway headings, rendering localizer/ILS approaches incorrect for any approaches with either a small offest (3-5 deg) that are still classified as ILS/LOC, or large offsets that are classified as LDAs. 

If that can be improved, as well as the missing data, it will be a huge win for flying IFR.  It's a bit of an "in the weeds" detail so the relevant threads in the official forums have been difficult to get upvoted. 

Edited December 16, 20205 yr by marsman2020

13 minutes ago, marsman2020 said:

If you're discussing this, please also consider bringing up that the in-sim localizer orientations have been locked to the runway headings, rendering localizer/ILS approaches incorrect for any approaches with either a small offest (3-5 deg) that are still classified as ILS/LOC, or large offsets that are classified as LDAs. 

If that can be improved, as well as the missing data, it will be a huge win for flying IFR.  It's a bit of an "in the weeds" detail so the relevant threads in the official forums have been difficult to get upvoted. 

Yup, on our list.

Woah that's a big difference. 

I've used navigraph in the past for fsx and xp11

Perhaps it's time to upgrade.

I wish Asobo would fix the approach sequencing issues though

Thanks to @kaosfere here's the latest data from NavBlue:

Latest Navigraph:

Edited December 16, 20205 yr by cwburnett

So it's really just the ILS that is the issue.

4 minutes ago, Tuskin38 said:

So it's really just the ILS that is the issue.

Well, and RNAV approaches which aren't in these lists. There are quite a few LDA and RNAV approaches that aren't in NavBlue yet.

3 hours ago, ryanbatcund said:

I'm also wondering if Navigraph will fill in the missing data?  There's a ton of smaller airports in MSFS that don't have any RNAV approaches / procedures.

I'd be curious to know the number of procedures between navblue and navigraph.

I have benefitted from your shares over the past few years.  Time to do what I can for you.  PM me a list of 5 to 10 airports and I will check my Navigraph results on available approaches and get back to you here.  My experience so far has been excellent. Note. This is an offer extended to Ryan only.  I also need time to fly.  But all of you may see what I report back, and measure it against what you see without Navigraph.

Edited December 16, 20205 yr by fppilot

why there is a lot of missing procedures in game if we compare it with P2ATC/ Little navmap procedures if we are using the same AIRAC 2013 for game and programs?

But my question was : Which DataBase does MSFS use ?

Dave

1 hour ago, DaveH said:

But my question was : Which DataBase does MSFS use ?

Dave

Default in-sim nav data is NavBlue data. NavBlue provides the raw data to Asobo, who then converts it into BGLs and adds it into the sim, which they then update in the sim in regular patch cycles. Navigraph is an alterative option, is subscription based, and replaces the default NavBlue data with their own database. Navigraph data installs into the Community folder like any other addon/mod and overwrites the default sim nav data in the MSFS virtual file system (VFS). NavBlue is a direct navdata provider to real operators around the world; Navigraph on the other hand has a relationship with Jeppesen. Jepp is the most prominent provider of real nav data to operators.

9 hours ago, motishow said:

why there is a lot of missing procedures in game if we compare it with P2ATC/ Little navmap procedures if we are using the same AIRAC 2013 for game and programs?

The biggest cause of missing procedures in the default data has to do with naming conventions, as best as I can tell. Right now, when Asobo takes the raw nav data from NavBlue and puts it into BGLs inside the sim, they only bring in approaches that include a runway number. However, there are many approaches that don't have runway numbers; this occurs when the approach course is not aligned with the runway heading - so an offset or non-runway approach, like LDA C or VOR A or RNAV D - we see those especially in mountainous regions where terrain prevents an approach that is directly aligned with the runway. Navigraph has gotten around this limitation in SOME cases, by renaming the approaches with a runway number, even that is not the real approach name. Good examples of this can be found when look at Aspen (KASE). There also appears to be a problem with the naming of a number of approaches into smaller airports, where sometimes they use the naming GPS instead of RNAV, but this one I haven't nailed down as well.

Lastly, the MSFS world map/planner view and many/most/all of the default avionics in MSFS do not have full support for enroute and runway transitions. So, for example, when choosing an arrival procedure in the world map view, you can't select which enroute transition you'd like to take. However, the data IS in the default data, it is just inaccessible by users in the world map view and in most default avionics. This is what we've been able to tap into on our CJ4 enhancement - by rewriting the flight plan management code and the FMC, we can now access all this additional data that's already in the sim by default, but just isn't available to users with the default aircraft.

TL;DR -- Navigraph adds more procedures and provides more timely updates for AIRAC cycles, but there's more data in the default sim data than initially meets the eye. This will continue improving over time as more bugs and naming convention problems get ironed out.

32 minutes ago, cwburnett said:

 However, there are many approaches that don't have runway numbers; this occurs when the approach course is not aligned with the runway heading - so an offset or non-runway approach, like LDA C or VOR A or RNAV D - we see those especially in mountainous regions where terrain prevents an approach that is directly aligned with the runway. Navigraph has gotten around this limitation in SOME cases, by renaming the approaches with a runway number, even that is not the real approach name. Good examples of this can be found when look at Aspen (KASE).

Speaking of KASE, last week MSFS ATC flew me into a mountain on a night approach there after a 2 hr. flight.